Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16 and 18-24 are presented for examination and claims 3,7, 13 and 17 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
2. 2.1 The rejection under 112 has been withdrawn since applicant’s amendments and remarks are persuasive and overcome the rejection.
2.2 Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by amendment. The rejection under 101 has been maintained since applicant’s amendments and remarks are not persuasive and fails to overcome the rejection.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant argues "At least these aspects, by tying amended independent claim 1 (and similarly amended independent claims 11 and 19) to the technical act of controlling an operation of an industrial device in accordance with a modification to a production schedule by generating and sending configuration data to the industrial devices that at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device, add meaningful limits on the use of the alleged abstract idea, and thus elevate the claims to significantly more than an abstract idea. By generating and sending the configuration data based on the other functions recited in the claims and thereby configuring an industrial device to implement a modified production schedule by controlling the operation of the industrial device, the claim limitations, read as a whole, yield an improvement to the technical field of industrial automation control. Such improvements to a technical area render the claims eligible for patentability pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments that are directed to sending configuration data to one or more industrial devices operating at a plant facility of the industrial customer entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device do not save the claims. The limitation of the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device is similar to the claims of Parker V. Flook which the Supreme Court found to be ineligible. In Parker V. Flook the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). The instant claims are similar in that setting a configuration parameter of the industrial device is similar the adjusting of an alarm limit in Flook.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant further argues "Moreover, the acts of generating and sending configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial customer entity, where this configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance the modification to the production schedule, are not merely mental processes or human activities that are nominally implemented by a processor and that could otherwise be performed by the human mind or by a human using pencil and paper. Instead, these are computer-centric functions that cannot be untethered from the computer hardware and computing environment carrying out these functions. Note that the human mind alone cannot control or configure an industrial device to change its operation by any means. Rather, these functions only have meaning within the context of industrial control device configuration and control and therefore cannot be divorced from the computer technology environments that facilitate such device configurations. This leads to a conclusion that at least these recited aspects do not represent mere abstract mental processes that are only nominally tied to a computer environment via claim language. Rather, at least these recited aspects are inextricably linked to computer technology, such that the claimed limitations cannot be separated from the computer hardware environment without rendering these functions meaningless."
The Examiner notes that a human can generate configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility and as such this step is abstract. However, a human cannot mentally send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility. However, as explained in the rejection the additional elements of transmitting configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device is similar to the claims of Parker V. Flook which the Supreme Court found to be ineligible. In Parker V. Flook the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post- solution activity"). The instant claims are similar in that the transmitting a configuration parameter of the industrial device is similar the adjusting of an alarm limit in Flook.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant further argues "Similar to the patent eligible claims assessed in Diamond V. Diehr, amended independent claim 1 (and similarly amended independent claims 11 and 19) expressly integrates the alleged abstract limitations of the claim into a real-world technical process; namely, control of an operation of an industrial device operating at a plant facility. Amended independent claim 1 further recites that this control is performed based in part on various conditions determined from analysis of multi-tenant production data collected by the system, including a current context of a manufacturing or business operation, a business strategy correlating with satisfaction of an optimization criterion by a business metric, and a modification to a production schedule formulated based on these factors. These features render amended independent claim 1 analogous to the eligible claims of Diamond V. Diehr, which determine a temperature, perform calculations and comparisons, and open a press based on the calculations. It is therefore submitted that amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19, and all claims depending therefrom, are eligible for patentability for reasons similar to those outlined in the July 2015 Update Appendix in connection with the claims of Diamond V. Diehr.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Further, claims at issue in Diamond V. Diehr are drawn to the constant determination of the temperature of the mold, the repetitive calculations and comparisons, and the opening of the press based on the calculations, which amount to significantly more than simply calculating the mold time using the Arrhenius equation because they add meaningful limits on use of the equation. The totality of the steps act in concert to improve another technical field, specifically the field of precision rubber molding, by controlling the operation of the mold. In the instant claims no such technical improvement in realized. The instant claims transmitting a configuration parameter of the industrial device. However, the claims do not state what this configuration parameter works, or which is does nor modify the performance of the production line. The claimed configuration parameter is similar to the setting of alarm limits in Parker V. Flook which was found to be abstract.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Applicant further argues "furthermore, as discussed below, the present claims recite aspects that are believed to be novel over the prior art, and therefore comprise nonconventional elements that, when read in light of the claim as a whole, yield significantly more than an abstract idea (see, e.g., Fairfield Indus., Inc. V. Wireless Seismic, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-2972, 2014 WL 7342525). These features also narrow the claims considerably relative to the alleged abstract idea and consequently minimize the risk of preemption (preemption being the primary concern underlying 35 U.S.C. § 101). Note that the courts have found that claims directed to a judicial exception are nevertheless eligible for patentability if such claims include "an inventive concept that appropriately limits the claim such that it does not preempt a significant amount of inventive activity" (see CalTech. V. Hughes Communications Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the claims are not allowable over the prior art. However, even if the claims were allowed over the art this does not have bearing on eligibility. MPEP 2105.05 states:
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government's invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better-established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "novelty" of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures / V. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. V. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As such, novelty does not have any bearing on subject matter eligibility. Despite not being rejected under the prior art, the claims recite limitations that fall into the methods of organizing activity grouping and are as such abstract.
2.3 The rejection under 103 has been maintained since applicant’s amendments and remarks are not persuasive and fails to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues the combination of Chao (US 20180357334A1) in view of Chitiveli (US 20130212061 A1) fail to disclose wherein the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule.
However, Chao (US 20180357334A1) discloses the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule. (para. 67 example analytical applications can learn or predict manufacturing floor outcomes, operational outcomes, device and equipment outcomes (e.g., predictive maintenance, life cycle alerts, optimal device configurations, etc.), production outcomes (e.g., whether a current production rate will meet demand, which facility is best suited to carry out a production order, etc.), quality outcomes, performance outcomes, etc. The analytics platform 506 can generate and deliver dashboards or other graphical interfaces to authorized client devices to visualize results of the analyses. Para. 60, in the example architecture depicted in FIG. 6, data management functions such as data orchestration, analytics, and storage can be carried out on a private subnet managed by an owner of the analytics system, while analytic results can be sent to client devices via a public subnet 610. Such results can include alerts, real-time or historical data visualization, recommended modifications to a control process (e.g., setpoint or process variable recommendations, production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.). See Chao para. 115 that teaches in some embodiments, rather than or in addition to delivering notifications via dashboards 1018, the analytic system 1016 may also be configured to deliver control instructions to one or more industrial assets to alter a controlled process based on the detected deviation or another result generated by analysis component 304. FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example architecture that implements control modifications to industrial assets based on analysis of the normalized data 920 and associated relationship metadata 922. As described in previous examples, industrial data and orchestration system 202 collects or receives structured and unstructured data 902a, 902b from devices, systems, and/or applications distributed throughout an industrial environment. This can include data received from sets of industrial assets 1302 that operate on the plant floor).
Claim Objections
3. Claims 23 objected to because of the following informalities: It unclear claim 23 is depended on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recites a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is directed toward a system to formulate a modification to a production schedule of the industrial customer entity that causes a business metric of the industrial customer entity to satisfy an optimization criterion given constraint of the current context.
Claim 11 is directed toward a method to formulate a modification to a production schedule of the industrial customer entity that causes a business metric of the industrial customer entity to satisfy an optimization criterion given constraint of the current context.
Claim 19 is directed toward a computer program product formulate, based on a second analysis of the multi-tenant data, a modification to a production schedule of the industrial customer entity that causes a business metric of the industrial customer entity to satisfy an optimization criterion given constraint of the current context. As such, each of the claims is directed at one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that
that To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners' focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determine, based on an analysis of the multi-tenant data, a current context of a manufacturing or business operation of an industrial customer entity, of the industrial customer entities, and formulate a modification to a production schedule of the industrial customer entity that causes a business metric of the industrial customer entity to satisfy an optimization criterion given constraints of the current context; and a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
an analytics component configured to
group a subset of the multi-tenant data corresponding to a subset of the industrial customer entities that operate manufacturing processes determined to be similar to one another: in the group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
determine, based on analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a business strategy predicted to cause a business metric to satisfy an optimization criterion: in the group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). and
a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule: in the group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a
human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the 'basic tools of scientific and technological work' that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
formulate a modification to a production schedule of an industrial customer entity operating a manufacturing process determined to be similar to the manufacturing processes based on the business strategy states: in the group of "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II;
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a "fundamental economic practice" and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219-20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as "a method of organizing human activity". Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a "fundamental economic practice" and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611-612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
Thus, the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting "a processor" nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed in the human mind.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
-Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
-Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising: internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a data collection and analytics service that collects multi-tenant data from industrial customer entities.
However, the computer elements (processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes
the executable components) are recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest reasonable
interpretation are simply generic computers performing generic computer functions. Generic computers
performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Further, the use of configuration data to configure one or more industrial devices is indicative of adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC V. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures / V. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. V. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures / V. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon management record types' and 'primary record types." 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited configuring the one or more industrial devices to attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". For example, the claims do not state how the configures the one or more industrial devices to modify a production schedule. As such, the broadly recited configuring the one or more industrial devices does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The limitation of “the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data…” indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The limitation of “a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the one or more industrial device to implement control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule”. The recitation of an industrial controller, used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use of the industrial controller as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The industrial controller is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic 'industrial controller'. Further the modification step is results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, viewing the generic computer elements in combination with the data collection does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the Examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a server that is connected to a plan explanation datastore amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The limitation of “the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data…” indicates that the retrieval of information is anything other than conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d) that states "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The limitation of “a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the one or more industrial device to implement control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule”. The recitation of an industrial controller, used for their conventional, routine, well-known purposes, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use of the industrial controller as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The industrial controller is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic 'industrial controller'. Further the modification step is results based as the limitation merely recites a wished-for result without limiting how the step is performed/executed. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) that states storing and retrieving information in memory is conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, claims 11 and 19 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1 Thus, the independent of claims 1, 11 and 19 are not patentable eligible.
As the dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 1, 11 and 19, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As claims 2, 12 and 20, recites a list of metrics … which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As claims 4 and 14, recites recommendation … which is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As claims 5 and 15, recites a list of recommendation … which is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As claims 6 and 16, recites modification of schedule … is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As claims 8 and 19, recites identify … and detecting a patten …. is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
As claim 9, recites identify … and recommendation … is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
As claim 10, recite a list of product material or type of process… which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 21, recite modification to the production schedule… which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 22 and 24, recite input describing the business metric and the optimization criterion; and a generative artificial intelligence (AI), which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim 23, recite the production schedules for the industrial customer entities… which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim is an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5.1 Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 20180357334A1) in view of Chitiveli (US 20130212061 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Chao discloses:
a memory (memory 218) that stores executable components (components 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214 can comprise software instructions stored on memory 218); and
a processor (one or more processors 216), operatively coupled to the memory (Fig. 2), that executes the executable components ([0051], executed by processor), the executable components comprising:
an analytics component (Abstract, analysis architecture integrates and collects data from multiple diverse sources at one or more industrial facilities) configured to:
a formulate a modification to a production schedule of an industrial customer entity operating a manufacturing process determined to be similar to the manufacturing processes based on the business strategy ([0120], directing instruction data 1306 to control devices on the plant floor to effectuate modifications to controlled industrial systems, some embodiments of system 302 can also perform modifications to related systems or applications that are not directly involved in control of the industrial machines or processes. For example, some embodiments of system 302 can modify maintenance schedules, work schedules, production schedules, or other related schedules based on results of the analysis performed by analysis component 304. In an example scenario, analysis component 304 may determine that a performance metric of a controlled process is beginning to drift and is expected to fall outside the preferred range for that metric defined by model data 1202. Based in part on the relationship metadata 922, analysis component 304 may also identify the relevant industrial devices, machines, or machine components that are likely causes of the performance drift. In response to these determinations, analysis component 304 can modify a maintenance schedule stored on a plant server to expedite maintenance for the identified device, machine, or component (e.g., by moving forward a scheduled maintenance date for the identified equipment); and
a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule ([0066], [0079], [0119]-[0120], If system 302 is executing on a gateway device 119 (e.g., an edge-level analytics system), instruction data 1306 can be sent to the relevant control device via the wired or wireless network(s) over which the gateway device 119 collects data from its assigned set of industrial devices. If system 302 is executing on a cloud platform (e.g., a cloud-level analytics system), instruction data 1306 can be delivered from the cloud platform to the target control device via any intermediate networks. instruction data 1306 can be sent to the relevant control device via industrial data orchestration system 202. modify maintenance schedules, work schedules, production schedules, or other related schedules based on results of the analysis performed by analysis component 304); and
wherein the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule ([0067], example analytical applications can learn or predict manufacturing floor outcomes, operational outcomes, device and equipment outcomes (e.g., predictive maintenance, life cycle alerts, optimal device configurations, etc.), production outcomes (e.g., whether a current production rate will meet demand, which facility is best suited to carry out a production order, etc.), quality outcomes, performance outcomes, etc. The analytics platform 506 can generate and deliver dashboards or other graphical interfaces to authorized client devices to visualize results of the analyses. Para. 60, in the example architecture depicted in FIG. 6, data management functions such as data orchestration, analytics, and storage can be carried out on a private subnet managed by an owner of the analytics system, while analytic results can be sent to client devices via a public subnet 610. Such results can include alerts, real-time or historical data visualization, recommended modifications to a control process (e.g., setpoint or process variable recommendations, production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.). See Chao para. 115 that teaches in some embodiments, rather than or in addition to delivering notifications via dashboards 1018, the analytic system 1016 may also be configured to deliver control instructions to one or more industrial assets to alter a controlled process based on the detected deviation or another result generated by analysis component 304. FIG. 13 is a diagram illustrating an example architecture that implements control modifications to industrial assets based on analysis of the normalized data 920 and associated relationship metadata 922. As described in previous examples, industrial data and orchestration system 202 collects or receives structured and unstructured data 902a, 902b from devices, systems, and/or applications distributed throughout an industrial environment. This can include data received from sets of industrial assets 1302 that operate on the plant floor).
Chao fails to discloses internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a data collection and analytics service that collects multi-tenant data from industrial customer entities; an analytics component configured to group a subset of the multi-tenant data corresponding to a subset of the industrial customer entities that operate manufacturing processes determined to be similar to one another, determine, based on analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a business strategy predicted to cause a business metric to satisfy an optimization criterion.
Chitiveli discloses internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system ([0018], a service provider hosting the content analytics service in a cloud), wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a data collection and analytics service that collects multi-tenant data from industrial customer entities a multi-tenant content analytics system((Abstract, [0005], [0015], [0017], Fig. 1 and Fig. 6, a software as a service (SaaS) provider to host a content analytics tool used to evaluate data collections for multiple customers (referred to as tenants) using one dedicated and expandable computing infrastructure, without requiring that the service provider obtain, install, license, and manage a separate copy of the content analytics tools for each tenant. The cloud deployment and ensure all the customers are treated with the same level of serviceability); and
an analytics component ([0044], the content analytics tool 110) configured to:
group a subset of the multi-tenant data corresponding to a subset of the industrial customer entities that operate manufacturing processes determined to be similar to one another ([0005], [0045], providing a multi-tenant content analytics system providing secure multitenant access to a hosted content analytics application. Receiving, from a plurality of tenants, a respective dataset, wherein each tenant is assigned an application ID by the content analytics application; and generating, by operation of one or more computer processors, a data collection from each received dataset. Each data collection includes one of the datasets and corresponding data analytics information generated by the content analytics application); and
determine, based on analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a business strategy predicted to cause a business metric to satisfy an optimization criterion ([0023], [0049], [0057], [0100], methodology for generating predictive maintenance or process control outcomes based on collection and analysis of data from diverse sources).
Chao and Chitiveli are analogous art. They relate to a manufacturing process analytics system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify, taught by Chitiveli, incorporated with taught by Chao, for adjusting operating conditions or replacing an entire piece of equipment. Additionally, AI embedded within the model can help engineers identify root-causes where operating parameters are not consistent with design specifications.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 20, Chao discloses the business metric is at least one of an overall profitability, a profitability of a type of product, fulfillment of demand for a product ([0095], highest product throughput), energy consumption of the manufacturing processes ([0095], energy consumption, least amount of machine downtime), a production cost of the manufacturing processes (, a product quality metric ([0066], quality check systems), or an emissions level of the manufacturing processes ([0095], [0104], the decision can be based on any suitable selection criteria, including but not limited to least processing time, least energy consumption, highest quality, least number of rejected parts, least amount of waste, lowest cost, etc.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Chao discloses the analytics component is configured to formulate a recommendation for altering a manufacturing or business operation of the industrial customer entity based on the business strategy ([0051], [0058],[0069], analytics system, while analytic results can be sent to client devices via a public subnet 610. Such results can include alerts, real-time or historical data visualization, recommended modifications to a control process (e.g., setpoint or process variable recommendations, production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.), and
the executable components further comprise a user interface component configured to render, on a client device associated with the industrial customer entity, a user interface that displays the recommendation ([0040], [0046],[0058], [0062], [0067], Presentation component 406 can be configured to render results of the device-level analytics on a client device in a suitable format, including but not limited to graphical dashboards or report presentations. The analytics platform 506 can generate and deliver dashboards or other graphical interfaces to authorized client devices to visualize results of the analyses).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Chao discloses the recommendation is at least one of a recommended configuration of an industrial asset, recommended configuration parameters for an industrial device, recommended control code for execution on an industrial controller, or a recommended data collection configuration (0069], [0107], [0108], production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chao discloses modification to the production schedule at least one of changes a type of product scheduled to be manufactured on a production line for a specified time period, changes a time period during which a product is scheduled to be produced, or changes a source from which to obtain a component part or material used by the manufacturing entity to produce the product ([0066], [0069],[0079], [0120], recommending that an operation be dispatched to an alternate site, re-planning availability to ship, triggering a new scheduling run, etc. Some embodiments of system 302 can also learn to identify factors that impact production, taking into consideration energy cost/usage, labor cost, machine downtime, etc., production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, the combination of Chao and Chitiveli disclose: Chao discloses the analytics component (analysis component 304) is further configured to
identify, based on the analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a pattern in a type of data from the subset of the multi-tenant data, that correlates with prediction of a type of problem in the manufacturing processes ([0042], [0066], [0073], [0086],[0087], he industrial data orchestration system 202 can identify relationships between items of the data 502, and record these relationships as metadata to facilitate analytics and machine learning. The industrial data orchestration system 202 serves as a self-learning system in which data patterns and classifications are recognized for future data correlations. A data historian device 110),
in response to detecting the pattern in the type of data collected from the industrial customer entity, generate a notification describing the type of problem ([0066], Data hosting services 510 on the cloud platform can store the collected and contextualized data, and analytics data staging services 512 (e.g., implemented by the predictive maintenance and process supervision system 302) can perform analytics on the stored data and metadata), and
the executable components further comprising a user interface component configured to render, on a client device associated with the industrial customer entity, a user interface that renders the notification ([0049],[0069], Fig. 6, Visualization tools can generate and deliver dashboards or other graphical interfaces to visualize results of the analyses. data management functions such as data orchestration, analytics, and storage can be carried out on a private subnet managed by an owner of the analytics system, while analytic results can be sent to client devices via a public subnet 610. Such results can include alerts, real-time or historical data visualization, recommended modifications to a control process (e.g., setpoint or process variable recommendations, production schedule recommendations, recommendations to replace an identified line operator at a specified time, etc.), maintenance recommendations (e.g., recommendations to replace or reconfigure a specified industrial device, recommended maintenance schedules for a specified machine, etc.).
Chitiveli discloses based on the analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data ([0005], [0045], providing a multi-tenant content analytics system providing secure multitenant access to a hosted content analytics application. Receiving, from a plurality of tenants, a respective dataset, wherein each tenant is assigned an application ID by the content analytics application; and generating, by operation of one or more computer processors, a data collection from each received dataset. Each data collection includes one of the datasets and corresponding data analytics information generated by the content analytics application.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chao and Chitiveli disclose: Chao discloses the analytics component (analysis component 304) is further configured to
identify, based on the analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a countermeasure implemented to address the type of problem ([0108], identifying maintenance or performance issues, some embodiments of predictive maintenance and process supervision system 302), and
generate a recommendation for implementing the countermeasure ([0108], [0125], [0126], generate recommendations for countermeasures to identified issues, including recommendations that consider multiple manufacturing sites that comprise an industrial enterprise); and
the user interface component is further configured to render a description of the countermeasure on the user interface ([0108], recommending that an operation be dispatched to an alternate site, re-planning availability to ship, triggering a new scheduling run, etc., and learn to identify factors that impact production, taking into consideration energy cost/usage, labor cost, machine downtime, etc. Results of the device- or equipment-level analytics can be consumed locally by the host device itself or sent to a respondent by presentation component 406 (e.g., as a notification or dashboard directed to a client device associated with a user). For example, in response to a determination by device-level analysis component 404 that the industrial controller or device that hosts analytic system 402 is at risk of failure or an unacceptable loss of efficiency, and if the analysis component 404 identifies an automated countermeasure that may mitigate or delay the device failure).
Chitiveli discloses based on the analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data ([0005], [0045], providing a multi-tenant content analytics system providing secure multitenant access to a hosted content analytics application. Receiving, from a plurality of tenants, a respective dataset, wherein each tenant is assigned an application ID by the content analytics application; and generating, by operation of one or more computer processors, a data collection from each received dataset. Each data collection includes one of the datasets and corresponding data analytics information generated by the content analytics application.
Regarding claim 10, Chao discloses the manufacturing processes comprise at least one of a type of batch process used to produce a material, a sheet metal stamping process, a web tension control process, a type of die casting process, or a type of tooling process ([0035], [0102], [0126], batch processing sending further instructions to the new production line to begin production, and sending still further instructions to appropriate upstream systems to begin providing material or parts to the new production line), sourcing a production line with parts from an alternate production line or source).
Regarding claim 23, Chao discloses the multi-tenant data comprises at least one of production data from the industrial customer entities, the production schedules for the industrial customer entities, inventory levels of products manufactured by the industrial customer entities or component parts used to manufacture the products, customer demand data for the products, purchase order data for the industrial customer entities, transportation scheduling data from a transportation entity, shipping route information for the transportation entity, or production schedules of supplier entities that manufacture component parts or materials used by the industrial customer entities to manufacture the products ([0066], Sources of data 502 can include plant-level industrial devices (e.g., industrial controllers, motor drives, sensors, telemetry devices, power monitor devices, human-machine interface terminals, vision systems, quality check systems, lot traceability systems, etc.), higher level business systems (e.g., accounting applications, ERP or MES systems, auditing applications, etc.) or other on-premise data sources (e.g., maintenance schedules, operator work schedules, product inventory databases, data historians, etc.).
5.2 Claim(s) 21, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 20180357334A1) in view of Chitiveli (US 20130212061 A1) furthers in view of Cella (US 20220318707 A1).
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24, the combination of Chao and Chitiveli disclose the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 19, but fail to disclose the limitations of claims 21-22 and 24. However, Cella discloses as follows:
Regarding claim 21, Cella discloses the modification to the production schedule at least one of changes a type of product scheduled to be manufactured on a production line for a specified time period, changes a time period during which a product is scheduled to be produced, or changes a source from which to obtain a component part or material used by the manufacturing entity to produce the product ([0278], a product configuration application 870 (such as for allowing a product manager and/or automated product configuration process (optionally using robotic process automation) to determine a configuration for a product 650, including configuration on-the-fly, such as during agile manufacturing, or involving configuration or customization in route and determining picking and packing schedules, routes and workflows, managing operations of robots, drones, conveyors, and other facilities, determining schedules for moving products out to loading docks or the like, and many other functions); a kit configuration and deployment application 874 (such as for enabling a user of the VCNP to configure a kit, box, or otherwise pre-integrated, pre-provisioned, and/or pre-configured system to allow a customer or worker to rapidly deploy a subset of capabilities of the VCNP 604 for a specific value chain network entity 652 and/or application 630); and/or a product testing application 878 for testing a product 650 (including testing for performance, activation of capabilities and features, safety, compliance with policy or regulations, quality, quality of service, likelihood of failure, and many other factors).
Regarding claim 22 and 24, Cella discloses the rendering, by the manufacturing cloud system on a client device associated with the manufacturing cloud system ([0034], a cloud-based management platform with a micro-services architecture; a set of interfaces),
a chat interface configured to receive, from the industrial customer entity, a natural language input describing the business metric and the optimization criterion ([0220], [0266], Fig. 3, FIG. 107 is a schematic illustrating an example neural network for implementing natural language processing. an intelligent product 650 that is enabled with a set of capabilities such as, without limitation data processing, networking, sensing, autonomous operation, intelligent agent, natural language processing, speech recognition, voice recognition, touch interfaces, remote control, self-organization, self-healing, process automation, computation, artificial intelligence, analog or digital sensors, cameras, sound processing systems, data storage, data integration, and/or various Internet of Things capabilities, among others),
inferring, by the manufacturing cloud system, the business metric and the optimization criterion based on generative artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of the natural language input ([0032], [0051], [0090], 0267], the query regarding the at least one element of qualified data is presented in the user interface. In other features, the query regarding at least one element of qualified data is provided to the fleet intelligence layer for processing with at least one intelligence service of the set of intelligence services to provide at least one clarification item of data for the at least one element of qualified data through the fleet intelligence layer. In other features, the robot fleet platform includes a qualified data resolution system configured to evaluate at least one qualified data element in the job content for similarity to clarified data from a plurality of job requests, and based on an outcome of the evaluation to adjust the at least one qualified data element based on a similar clarified data element); and
performing, by the manufacturing cloud system, the analysis of the subset of the multi- tenant data based on the business metric and the optimization criterion inferred by the based on generative AI analysis ([0279],[0289],[0298], [0301], [0304], identifying opportunities for inputs to enrich analytics, artificial intelligence and/or automation, for identifying cost-saving opportunities, for identifying profit and/or arbitrage opportunities, and many others); a workforce management application 888 (such as for managing workers in various work forces, including work forces in, on or for fulfillment centers, ships, ports, warehouses, distribution centers, enterprise management locations, retail stores, online/ecommerce site management facilities, ports, ships, boats, barges, trains, depots, and other facilities mentioned throughout this disclosure).
Cella, Chao and Chitiveli are analogous art. They relate to a manufacturing process analytics system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify artificial intelligence capabilities, taught by Cella, incorporated with teaching of Chitiveli and Chao, as stated above, in order to provide an information technology system having an artificial intelligence system for learning on a training set of outcomes, parameters, and data collected from a set of distributed manufacturing network entities in a distributed manufacturing network and/or value chain network to optimize digital production processes and workflows.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 11, 15 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/666,243 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have similar limitations as shown in the mapping below:
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
US instant application 18/666,226
US copending application 18/666,234
1. A system, comprising:
a memory that stores executable components; and
a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising:
internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a data collection and analytics service that collects multi-tenant data from industrial customer entities;
an analytics component configured to
group a subset of the multi-tenant data corresponding to a subset of the industrial customer entities that operate manufacturing processes determined to be similar to one another,
determine, based on analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a business strategy predicted to cause a business metric to satisfy an optimization criterion, and
formulate a modification to a production schedule of an industrial customer entity operating a manufacturing process determined to be similar to the manufacturing processes based on the business strategy; and
a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule.
wherein the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial customer entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule.
Claim 11 and claim 19 have similar limitations to claim 1
1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a memory that stores executable components; and
a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components comprising:
internal services that implement a manufacturing cloud system, wherein the manufacturing cloud system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) system that executes a data collection and analysis service that collects multi-tenant data from industrial customer entities, wherein the multi-tenant data comprises at least production data from the industrial customer entities;
an analytics component configured to
group a subset of the multi-tenant data corresponding to manufacturing entities that operate within the same industrial vertical as the industrial customer entity,
determine, based on a first analysis of the multi-tenant data, a current context of a manufacturing or business operation of an industrial customer entity, of the industrial customer entities,
determine, based on a second analysis of the subset of the multi-tenant data, a business strategy that correlates with satisfaction of an optimization criterion by a business metric, and
formulate, based on the current context and the business strategy, a modification to a production schedule of the industrial customer entity that causes the business metric to satisfy the optimization criterion given constraints of the current context; and
a scheduling component configured to implement the modification to the production schedule,
wherein the analytics component is further configured to generate and send configuration data to an industrial device operating at a plant facility of the industrial customer entity, and the configuration data at least one of sets a configuration parameter of the industrial device or modifies control code executing on the industrial device to control an operation of the industrial device in accordance with the modification to the production schedule.
Claims 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the current context is at least one of an inventory level of a product manufactured by the industrial customer entity, an inventory level of a component part or material used to manufacture the product, a current or predicted demand for the product, or a current or predicted production capacity of a production line operated by the industrial customer entity.
Claim 11 and claim 19 have similar limitations to claim 1
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification to the production schedule at least one of changes a type of product scheduled to be manufactured on a production line for a specified time period, changes a time period during which a product is scheduled to be produced, or changes a source from which to obtain a component part or material used by the manufacturing entity to produce the product.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 6.
5. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the modification to the production schedule at least one of changes a type of product scheduled to be manufactured on a production line for a specified time period, changes a time period during which a product is scheduled to be produced, or changes a source from which to obtain a component part or material used by the industrial customer entity to produce the product.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 5.
Citation Pertinent prior art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GOYAL (US 20190025800 A1) discloses a processor for determining a standardized designation of a role that corresponds to an entity-specific designation of the role after comparing an information associated with the entity-specific designation of the role and information associated with a set of standardized designations of a set of roles.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights